Some time has passed since the Sunflower movement protests — which begun when a student-led group of protesters occupied the chamber of the Legislative Yuan on March 18 — have drawn to a close. Now that the excitement is over, it may be a bit easier for people to consider calmly the various aspects of the way protest movements have developed in this country.
Over the past few years, Taiwan has seen a never-ending series of protest movements, be they big or small in terms of participants. Protest has become a typical state of affairs in the nation and serves as an emotional outlet. Can a new force, or a new civic movement, come into being — one that transcends political parties and social classes and is pure, selfless, peaceful and rational? While many people would like to see that happen, it is by no means a certainty.
Economic wealth is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a minority, while the country’s future is in the hands of a bunch of politicians whose salient characteristics are their shortsightedness and ideological bias.
Looking no further than the next election, they are only concerned with pleasing their core supporters.
Almost every clash between purportedly different political approaches is just another form of infighting between the pan-blues and pan-greens, or a bartering of interests between the two sides. Incapable of devoting themselves to basic constructive reform, politicians have let the nation slide into stagnation and even regression.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his government might promise in all sincerity that they are striving for the prosperity of the nation, but their performance has earned them no plaudits. People are largely subject to psychological perceptions and infectious emotions. For most people, the central question is not whether a government’s reforms can make society fairer and more equal, but whether the fairness and equality that they seek can give the public a sense of belonging, cohesion and group consciousness.
Society is filled with distrust and people feel very insecure about what the future has in store for them. Most people are bogged down in “postmodern collective anxiety.” Many think that life is unfair and they feel uneasy, frustrated and disheartened. It is easy for them to find fault, but not to find a piece of driftwood that they can use to stay afloat.
When people take part in social movements that focus on freedom and resistance, it can give them a sense of liberation, like Prometheus unbound, and allows them to feel they are the masters of their own fates. For others, it is a matter of following the latest fashion — the herd mentality — in a search for social recognition and self-realization.
Protest is not purely a reaction against government policy. It gives people a new understanding of society, culture and history. Social movements are not merely fashions. They can shape the direction and environment of future political developments and spur them on, while inspiring political ideas, organizations and trends.
However, one thing that Taiwan may have in common with other new democracies is that its political movements tend to lack independence and are incapable of attracting a diversity of civic forces from across the spectrum of society. These factors prevent them from effectively monitoring possible abuses of power by the government and political parties or from compelling leaders to carry out needed reforms.
One reason for this is that the nation’s particular political environment makes it easy for people involved in social movements to wear the colors of the pan-blue or pan-green camps. Then, they tend to specialize in self-criticism and go quiet when confronted by the opposition. They fail to confront those in power in a consistent manner. This turns protests into a mere extension of political infighting, while social movements become factions of political parties.
The second reason is that some activists, while emphasizing a peaceful and rational approach, refuse to engage in open dialogue.
They only tolerate political and cultural discourse from within their own groups. This is a kind of ideological imperialism and many cannot understand why activists of this kind think that only the views they express and their own opinions can be right and everyone else must be wrong.
Over the past couple of decades, infighting between the pan-blue and pan-green camps has brought Taiwan to its knees, almost to the point of paralysis.
Most people are sick and tired of the fighting, but cannot get away from it. When society is so stricken by depression and anxiety, there is an urgent need for a genuinely popular force to appear in the limelight.
Sad to say, the notion of “the people” has been used and abused so much that it has lost its essential meaning. It has become an abstract concept that is open to manipulation in attempts to mold or please public opinion. Consequently, when it is used as a call to join a struggle, it can sound very dissonant.
Civic movements must strive to escape from the characteristics that stem from their past dependence on political parties and develop more sophisticated and comprehensive patterns of behavior.
At the same time, they must uphold the possibility of dialogue, as befits a democratic society. This openness would make the world more tolerant and diverse and make it possible for the centrist forces that exist among Taiwanese to converge and come to the fore.
Chiou Tian-juh is a professor of social psychology at Shih Hsin University.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers